Straight Up

The Reality of the ‘Something for Nothing Society.

2012-11-21T11:14:00.003-08:00

The financial realities of the ConDem’s austerity package is finally kicking in, affecting most families, friends and communities within the U.K. There are so many families losing their jobs, living on the breadline and struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately it looks as if this trend will continue for some time under the uncaring and unscrupulous Westminster government.

With communities being ripped apart, and many suffering the indignity of losing their jobs and collecting welfare the last thing they need is to be labelled a ‘something for nothing society.’ Yet this is how, not only Labour but the rest of the Westminster politicians see people on benefits. It is also one of the main differences between Labour for Independences Real Labour policies and that of Scottish Labour.

Welfare, since its creation, has always been a contentious topic, the third line on the rail track, touch it and die (at least politically). But it’s an important issue and one which will be a leading factor in the independence debate.

So before we get started, let’s get the facts straight. The welfare system is in need of reform, the current system offers no financial incentive for many to work. There are also people out there who abuse the system. But these people are in the extreme minority. Most people who are on welfare are on it for need rather than greed.

The current system of change under Ian Duncan Smith ignores this, while the need for reform is not in question, a blanket cut is not the answer. For many suffering disabilities the embarrassing situation of claiming benefits is humiliating enough without having to undergo testing as to how disabled they actually are. How can someone prove to ATOS that they have mental health issues? How do you test someones physical disabilities without stripping them of their dignity?

The real change in the welfare system will only come about when there is a real incentive for people to work. A member of my family, after giving birth to her first child, worked 16 hours a week in a minimum wage job. When she was offered 5 extra hours a week, she had to refuse them as it would have meant she lost all her tax credits, leaving her unable to live. This is not encouraging work rather restricting individual responsibility and holding families back.

Only when there is a true incentive for people to give up their welfare for work, will be when work, even the most basic becomes more financially appealing than staying on welfare. This will only happen when a minimum wage is reflective of the demands made on a family.

The other issue, is the complexity of the tax credits, The truth of the situation is that most people who use them, don’t understand how they are worked out. In fact those who ‘cheat the system’ should be awarded honorary degrees for working out the process. The realities for most is that they fill out their claim and receive a payment. What happens too often is that the tax credits office then come back the following year claiming that the claimant has been overpaid and is now due money. However to prevent hardship they continue to pay them leading to more being owed, and a never ending spiral of debt and poverty. The system needs to be made simpler and have the awarded claim be undisputable.

The unsettling reality of the economic situation we find ourselves in, is that more and more people will experience the welfare system. This is not something which should be mocked or have those in that position be blamed for the economic crisis we face. Let’s not forget who got us into this situation in the first place. The banks and the government for failing to regulate them properly. It is the people who are now being blamed for this crisis who are suffering the most. To label them as a something for nothing society, is crass, uncaring, and shows a basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the hardships faced in communities each day.

Labour for Independence wants to see more people in work, for their own self-respect, for the financial benefit for their families and for our economy as a whole. But what is needed is dramatic changes to incentivise work, increase the minimum wage to a living wage. Reduce the risk of debt by simplifying the credit system.

The only way for real reform to take place in Scotland is for the reforms to be made by a government who represents every person in Scotland not just those who turn a profit. Those in a Westminster ivory tower, who have no idea of the hardships faced by those most affected by austerity can never truly grasp what is needed. This, like so many other issues are best resolved in an independent Scotland and with Real labour ideals at the heart of it. Without it we will never be able to solve our biggest societal challenges and will always be labelled a ‘something for nothing society!’

A Reason for Hope

2012-08-10T18:51:00.002-07:00

I started the Labour Voters for Independence Facebook page as an avenue for Labour supporters who believed in independence to voice their opinions away from the spectre of the party.

In the last six weeks, this page has had an enormous stream of support. I'm proud we have changed some people’s perceptions, I'm pleased that we have given the pro-Indy Labour voters a home to voice their opinions. In the last month, we have created our own website which, after just over three weeks, has had more than 10,000 hits.

In the coming months, we will continue to spread our message. We will be proud to join the independence march on September 22. Our aim is to gain enough grass roots support within our party so that we may be allowed to vote on Labour’s stance on the independence campaign and in the next two years we will continue to seek support from within our party.

We would also like to encourage everyone to enter the debate on our page, no matter what your stance on independence. A thriving national conversation is what is needed at this time and we are proud to play our part in this.

In the coming weeks and months, I along with many others will continue to argue the advantages for a strong Scottish Labour Party through independence. This, however, is not what I wish to write about today.

The case for an independent Scotland is one that affects all political parties, both for and against independence but it is so much more important than that. The supporters of a strong union, of which the hierarchy of my party are one, will tell you that we are better together, stronger united. They will pose the question of Why? Why should Scotland go it alone? Why should the Scottish people seek to break free from the safety and security of the United Kingdom?

With the UK in a double dip recession, cuts being made across all public services, the cost of living rising while wages stagnate, unemployment rising, more families scraping to make ends meet and one in five Scots children living in poverty my question to them is: Why not?

The argument over the benefits for Scotland of independence will continue to rage on until 2014 – would Scotland today be better or worse off as an independent country? But this is not the question we should be asking. The real issue is: how will Scotland fare tomorrow and in the future?

If we look and analyse Scotland today we can never have a real idea of what an independent Scotland can achieve. Take South Korea where I lived and worked for two years. Immediately after the Korean war, the South suffered great hardship. Yet through education, technological ingenuity and hard work South Korea became the thirteenth largest economy in the world and this was reflected in the confidence of the people who lived there. This should be the aim for all independently-minded Scots.

We as a nation have a great deal to offer the world, be it through tourism, or oil, our national dram and common sense. Yet it should not be limited to this. Our natural resources of wind and wave power mean we could lead the world in renewable energy. Our research facilities are some of the finest in the world; our belief in tolerance as seen recently by allowing gay marriage, can show the world a better way.

It is not an easy thing to grasp your nationality. It is in our minds that we can become great, in our ideologies of how people are treated, our sense of adventure and most importantly our ingenuity. We should always remember great Scots such as Fleming, Bell and Livingstone. But they should not be thought of in remembrance of what we once achieved, rather what we can achieve.

We have an opportunity which those in the last three hundred years never had. An opportunity to look forward to a free, independent, proud Scotland, one which stands shoulder to shoulder with the great and good of the world. That is more valuable than any political party.

Good for Scotland, Good for Labour

2012-07-19T13:57:00.002-07:00

Over the next two years, there will be countless headlines, opinions, and righteous self opinions on the case for Scottish independence. Some will argue that it will lead to a Socialist Utopia, a Northern Kuwait. While others will cite the slow and painful death of a nation, much like the media do now of Scottish football.

Each side are, at the moment, are waiting for the other to outlay their grand plans, their reasons, their smoking gun which will lead the nation to a Yes or a No vote. So, not being one for getting ahead of myself; this article will not be about why independence is good for Scotland, but rather why it's good for the Labour party.

For years the argument has been, if you want independence, vote for the SNP. Well I never have nor intend to, yet we approach the precipice of the nationalist movement. Is it possible to be pro independence but vote for Labour?

One of the founders of the Labour Party.

The foundations of the Labour party are closely aligned not only in Scottish politics but Scottish independence. The founding father of the Labour movement Keir Hardie was a strong believer of home rule. Yet within the modern Labour party their seems to be an automatic assumption that the party and party members must support the union.

But lets suppose it's 2014, the polls have voted a resounding Yes vote for Scottish Independence. A new Scottish Labour party must be formed, independent of Westminster and all its ties. What would that party look like? Would it support Trident? Would half of their public message be based on a 'Squeezed middle?' Where would it stand on education, health? Would it semi privatise these systems as New Labour did? What would a Labour party look like when it doesn't have to court the home counties?

Don't misunderstand me, as a British Labour party I understand the need to play to the home counties, to Middle England. Don't get their votes, don't WIN! But do all the issues of Middle England affect Scotland?

I argue that the majority of Scots voters are far more liberal than those of the south. While I do not think that we would have a socialist utopia, nor a death of a conservative force in Scotland, I do believe that the majority of this great nation would in fact vote for a real Scottish Labour. A Labour party that returns to its original roots, one of workers rights, education for all, welfare as a hand up not a handout, self defence and preservation, while holding a moral standing in the world.

One of the great qualities we have as a country is also our worst, self deprecation. It's a wonderful tool, that's disarming and charming. But sometimes, its time we showed a little confidence, some swagger. How many times will we watch Scotland play football or Andy Murray play in a grand slam final and say well, they/he wont win? Why are we as a country such a shy child who needs someone to tell us that we are worthwhile, that we can do well? We can make our nation great. We can succeed as an independent country.

If for nothing else than a stronger, fairer Labour party who will fight for your needs; not those of Sussex or Hampshire, then the answer has to be YES!

D-Day for Sevco Rangers or The End of Scottish Football

2012-07-03T03:29:00.002-07:00

The End of the Old Firm?

In the next two days the fate of what was once the most successful domestic club in the world will be decided. Tomorrow the SPL clubs should, having stated their intentions already, refuse to grant The Rangers Football Club, a place in the Scottish Premier League. While today 30 SFL clubs will come together to agree on whether they will be accepted in to the First Division Or the Third.

The talking, the debate, the headlines seem to have been never ending, but now it's time for the main event, When the fate of Scottish football may be decided.

Being a Celtic fan, I was not one of these fans who wanted Rangers to be destroyed, I look forward to the Old Firm games as do all Celtic and Rangers fans. I did however expect to see them face strict punishment and accept it as the guilty party. The transfer ban imposed by the SFA might not have been legal, but it allowed a way for Rangers to be punished while still leaving the door open for them to play a full part in the SPL. Rather than accept these average punishments, Rangers, or rather the new promised messiah, Charles Green took them to the Scottish courts.

There has been a decided stench in the air since Rangers went into administration. For every one Rangers fan you meet, who feels they have done wrong and deserve to be punished ten more will tell you it's all one big conspiracy against their lovable rogue of a team. From Mark Hateley's attempts to belittle Celtics title win, Sandy Jardine calling players who refused to sign for the new Sevco, cowards. These very players by the way were the ones who took a 75% pay cut to keep Ibrox staff in a job.

The smartest man in all this sham seems to be Charles Green. When faced with the prospect of buying the club for £11 million and then paying back creditors. He came out the day before the creditors hearing and stated he had 30 transfer targets and wanted Rino Gattuso on £12,000 a week. Then he had the temerity to walk into the creditors meeting and offer 9p in the pound, no wonder they said no.

The result of this being he was able to liquidate Rangers Football Club and buy its assets for £5.5 million. Considering Ibrox and Albion Car Park alone were listed as having a value of £121 million it's quite a shrewd piece of business. The kind that only someone lacking any emotion or empathy would make. It's hardly surprising he's threatening court action over the players refusing to agree to new contracts as it just cost him somewhat close to £25 million.

What are Charles Green's real intentions?

So now the Scottish club has to make a major decision, Send Rangers into Division 3 and face a financial meltdown in the game, or allow them into the First division, be seen as morally repugnant and lacking any thread of sporting integrity. Well actually it doesn't have to be either.

Say Rangers are voted down to the Third Division, clubs who are more successful will see their attendances rise. There is a possibility of losing the Sky deal, something which rings fear into ever SPL chairman. Would this be such a bad thing?

The first Old Firm game of last season at Ibrox, ticket prices were £45 for everyone, no concessions, just one set price. That means a family of 4 living in Dundee would pay

£180 for 4 tickets,

£30 for petrol

£10 for programmes x2

£ 20 on food/drinks

That's £230 for on game of football, 90 minutes, or go to the pub to watch it on Sky.

If there was no Sky deal, there would be no random games at obscure hours to fit around the EPL. There would be Saturday 3pm matches. If the power men of Scottish football really want to save the game, then lower ticket prices, become more family friendly, more involved in local communities, focus on youth players, get all the basics right again, and then try to move forward in an affordable way.

Most fans who have been demanding Rangers to be sent to the bottom of the leagues have been accused by the media of not understanding the consequences, of killing the game. These fans aren't just some idiots who just walked in from a 10 year wilderness retreat, they are ready for change, they want change and they want to see justice be done.

There is an acceptance in Scotland that we will no longer see the days of world class players such as Laudrup and Larsson., we realise that we may have to walk into the wilderness, but this does not have to be the end or a bad thing. As Henry David Thoreau once said;

“Generally speaking, a howling wilderness does not howl: it is the imagination of the traveller that does the howling.”

10 Ways to Get the Economy Moving Part 2

2012-05-08T16:09:00.002-07:00

Part 2

In the second and final part today I will be looking at a further 5 ways to get the U.K. Back to to working order. Again these are my opinions and suggestions. Feel free to comment or disagree.

Introduce a lasting progressive tax system.

When I studied politics, the text which left the lasting impact on me wasJohn Rawls; Theories of Justice. The argued for veil of ignorance in which those who earn the most should contribute more resonates with most sane people, unless of course you ARE one of the top 5% of earners.

I believe that we should have a 50% tax rate for the highest earners which declines the further you go down the tax bracket. This policy needs to be instituted permanently. However this is only half the issue. By raising the tax to 40% there is a danger; as is proving true at the moment, that you receive less tax returns as the highest earners find ways to avoid paying the levy.

In order for this tax scheme to work, there should be strict penalties for all tax avoidance, and all tax loopholes closed. Businesses should also be rewarded for paying their tax contributions by being giving a 6 month N.I. tax break. This should prompt tax payers to pay on time and hopefully encourage small businesses to take on more employees.

Pay freezes/cuts to start at the top, not the bottom.

At the time of this our public services are being gutted by savage and careless cuts, this not only affects the services available to the general public but also those employed in the sector.

Widespread redundancies have lead to, not exclusively; closures of leisure centres and libraries, shortening of office hours and now as we've seen recently in the news, mass delays in border controls at major airports.

But these cuts are not coming at the top where council fat cats enjoy their lunches and 'twinning' trips at the taxpayers expense, whilst it must be said some take home in a yearly salary than the Prime Minster. These cuts are affecting the lower paid workers, the coal face of the public services you and your family need and use.

What happens to these workers, who join the ever expanding unemployment line? Where are the private sector jobs which would appear to cover this loss in employment? Instead of receiving a working wage for the service they provide, they claim benefits paid for by the government. Instead of using their wages to buy fuel, groceries, amenities and other purchases in our high streets, they cut back as there is little money coming into the household. This further stagnates the economy with less people spending and more being subsidized by the government.

Yes the deficit needs to be reduced, yes there is wasted spending within each public service these are all areas which can be trimmed and money saved. But IF there needs to be cuts it should start at the top. Instead their wages are incredibly set to rise. Trimming the fat at the top of the table is a far more effective and moral way than to swipe the scraps from the servants quarters.

Reduction in alcohol, fuel and cigarette tax.

This is the one I'm sure that most people will take issue with, the fuel pricing withstanding. So let me make my point and feel free to disagree...

In this, a proud democratic country, we have for centuries extolled the virtues of democracy and freedom of speech which we enjoy here, if not for it, I would not be able to type this and place it on this site. The one freedom we seem to have forgotten is a freedom of choice.

Lets look at a rough pricing of cigarettes. (for a packet of 20)

U.K £6-£8

Germany £3.50

Spain £3

Eastern Europe £1-£2

South Korea 90p

South East Asia 20p

Are we being unfairly charged by manufacturers in this country? No the rest of the cost is sent direct to the treasury, along with your national insurance, and income tax.

Why is it so expensive? The political argument is that smoking severely damages your health (it does.) It also uses up a large amount of the NHS budget in treating smoking related diseases.(It does.)

However the amount made in tax is far greater than the cost of treatment.

“The revenue generated from tobacco products is a matter for HM Treasury.
However, it should be noted that the Government, as a whole, has made the
decision to reduce smoking rates in England. In 2004, the Government
agreed an overarching target to reduce smoking substantially from 25 per
cent in 2004 to 21 per cent or less by 2010 and to reduce smoking among
routine and manual groups to 26 per cent or less. The Government expects
that reducing smoking rates will lead to a loss of revenue to the
Exchequer. However, any loss to the Exchequer is balanced by the fact
that thousands of lives are saved through the Government's tobacco control
strategy.”

Now I will admit this is an admirable attempt to save lives, and as a smoker myself who is trying to stop I do appreciate the efforts made to educate smokers of the health risks involved. However the ludicrous tax placed on cigarettes are a blatant breach of an individuals freedom of choice. If you want to smoke then you should be allowed to do so, without, being treated worse than a drug addict and being priced out of something you wish to do.

Minimum pricing of alcohol is another issue, this is based on the minority abusing alcohol at the detriment of their health. This minimum pricing will not stop alcoholics from drinking, in fact the likely affect will be that crime rates will rise as they raise their drinking money in any fashion they can. The real people this will affect, are genuine hard working people who at the end of a long working week like a drink in moderation and find another tax hike.

The more this government interferes in your life the higher your prices go up. This government, in particular, this government want the majority to keep working long into their old age, earn just enough to get by and forgo any minor pleasures you find comfort in along the way. That is of course unless you have a bit of cash behind you, then you might just receive a bit of a break.

Scrap the royal family. (Or at least tax their earnings)

The 32^nd richest woman in the U.K, has a personal fortune estimated at around £310 million. To achieve this wealth, she was born into a famous family, and her job includes visiting most countries around the world, staying at the finest of establishments, all of which earn her a £1 million salary a year. Oh that's tax free by the way.

Imagine the uproar if she was a banker, or WAG, but no this woman, is our head of state, the Queen, One in a long line of money draining idlers who have vacated Buckingham Palace and other fine establishments.

What is the purpose of the Queen? Some would argue that she brings a large amount of money into the country through tourism, she is the ideal face for Britain. While the first point may be true, does this do enough to warrant her salary and mass personal fortune given to her, by her subjects? Would a presidential head of state not do the same but for far less?

Okay, here's the argument, who has attracted more worldwide appeal for their country, The Queen, or Barack Obama?

This mass fortune is not including our continual funding for the largest group of gentry which have been given land, title and wealth for nothing more than being born into a household, no matter how distant from the main character.

Still not convinced? Well just remember that we are not only subsidising the Queen, with her, the baggage is far greater, we, the tax payers are also keeping the crooked son Andrew, the show jumper with the dwarf throwing husband, and of course lovable Prince Philip in the luxury that they are accustomed. All while we face continued hardship, and money worries.

So yes scrap them all or if you must keep them can we have a maximum of 5 in there. If it came to a choice between investment in schools and jobs or Corgi's and caviare for H.M. I know what I would rather have.

An introduction of compulsory second language education from the age of 8 onwards.

For the last twenty years countries around the world and in particular Asia, have opened English language school, which teach ESL(English as a second language) some from a kindergarten age. The aim of this is to give their youth the best possible start so that they can compete globally in business and other walks of life.

I was very fortunate to have been an ESL teacher for over 2 years in South Korea, and see the great benefits of this in our smaller, more connected global community.

How many people in this country have the ability to speak another language fluently? It is remarkably few, I know I can't. We in the west have gotten by for too long expecting others to learn our language, our customs and methods, while showing little regard for theirs.

However, the world is changing, the Wests' power is diminishing, economically, politically and financially. As a result, our youth will be left behind.

There are in most schools now, after school clubs, which act as a child minding service after school until the adult working day has ended. This time is a great opportunity for investment in secondary language education.

I believe that this period should be used as a mandatory language hour, in which from the ages of 8 and upwards, students learn a language which will prove useful in their future, Such as Mandarin, Arabic or German.

I wish that as a child this had been available to me, as at that young age new languages can be absorbed like a sponge. Investing in this small step, would not have an immediate impact on our economy but rather a wise investment in our children that will reap rewards for years to come, helping them to compete globally in their future careers.

I realise that part 2 of this article, has been perhaps an angry manifesto of what is wrong with this country. I make no apologies for that. Recent events which have further damaged our economic plight should make us all angry.

We are in the midst of a double dip recession, an economy which is growing slower than the great depression, working families are struggling to make ends meet, jobs are being cut, wages are stagnant while living costs sky rocket. Yet this government does not seem to care.

If your reading this and you are not eligible for the 5% tax cut in income tax, ask yourself this. Does this government care about me? Does it understand the difficulties I, my family, my friends and colleagues face?

It's remarkable to me that at a time when the wealthiest in this country have so much, compared to the many; who face their bleakest time. Yet there has not been more done. In Russia, Germany, France, when this has occurred in the past there have been revolutionary uprisings. Yet never here in the U.K.

Well now is the time for our revolution, but it should not be one of violence but of protest, not on the battle field but in the ballot box.

I realise that not all my suggestions will be agreed with, and in this democratic society we are allowed to disagree with one another, but I hope that for anyone who reads this it will be a starting point. What can be done? What should be done? That power whether the wealthiest like to admit it; is in everyone s hands.

I will, after this rant return to commenting on topical issues. As always thoughtful comments regardless of opinion are welcome.

10 steps to get the U.K. moving. Part 1

2012-02-28T14:53:00.005-08:00

The role of political commentary is often one of criticism and general mockery of ideas and policies. So for a change I thought I would offer some ideas in which if implemented could spark the U.K. out of the quagmire it finds itself in. So here are my 10 steps to get the country moving again.

Cut VAT to 15%

One of the most crucial facets in looking to improve GDP is to get the public spending money. This is one of the biggest arguments against wiping out jobs to save money.

If they have nothing; they will spend nothing!!

The same applies when VAT is set too high. This tax affects the poorest the hardest. Who do you think will feel the pinch of an extra £20 on a new tyre? Or when they shopping bill comes in £10 more than before? A reduction in VAT will give consumers confidence to purchase and thus GDP will grow through increased expenditure.

Invest in Renewable Energy.

For every reason imaginable; environmentally, economically,and security wise, we must discover and develop independently, eco-friendly energy resources. This would create a new innovative employment source and, cut our dependency on foreign oil, Particularly from an ever increasingly hostile environment.

We should be looking at ways in which wind, wave, solar and nuclear energy can be developed into effective, and durable energy sources which do less harm to our planet yet provide an vital source for our future and for generations to come.

Bankers bonuses to be paid/taxed into Green jobs fund.

For far too long this country has rewarded failure within the banking system with financial reward. Any independent banking/financial system who fails to make a profit should have their bonuses taxed separately at a 50% rate. Any publicly owned bank should have their bonuses paid into a green jobs fund, until they make a profit. It is quite ridiculous for executives to make £1 million pounds annual salary and receive that again through bonuses while still running the company at a loss.

These bonuses should be used to help fund renewable energy initiatives which would provide additional employment and allow for cheaper utility charges.

Toughen stance on benefit cheats/tax dodgers/drug users/knife crime.

As a developed nation, I feel it is one of our proudest achievements that we provide support for individuals and families who need it. There has however become a growing culture of idleness, drug abuse and violence. The benefit system should be in place for those who really need it. Be it;

An individual actively seeking employment.
An individual with a disability preventing them from employment.
A family with parents in work but not making enough to pay the bills despite FT/PT employment.
An individual who are suffering from long term diseases such as cancer which prevents them from work.

These are the people ours or any country should be proud to help in their hour of need. The benefits system is NOT in place for;

Idle people who are fit enough to work but do not seek it or do the bare minimum to qualify for benefits.
Drug addicts/abusers who would rather spend their days in a clouded daze than work and still have more money than some hard working families (through whatever means they accumulate this.)
Individuals working cash in hand while still claiming payments.

We could continue this to include plasma TVs for prisoners but that is for another article.

Most people would agree the benefit system is far from perfect, however it seems the government is more interested in a blanket cut, which will also affect those who really need/deserve the help rather than attempting to root out the bad apples in the cart.

This is especially poignant for me, as the city I was born and raised has become riddled to the point of endemic with drug users. This has led to knife crime increasing (4 killings in 1 week within a 15 mile radius.) An elderly gentleman told me of his neighbour who was on methadone treatment but refused to walk 15 minutes to the clinic and so they have been paying his taxi fares there and back every week. People in my community and communities all over Britain are sick of it.

In addition to this those who have tax shelters abroad should be punished for not paying their share of tax. It is not fair to expect to make a profit from a country while putting nothing back in. It is also not fair for this government to claim that were all in this together and yet sit idly by while these millionaires live their lavish lives tax free.

These issues really will be a massive undertaking; yet it is the only way to making this a fairer,safer society.

Don't be afraid of bad businesses leaving.

This week,RBS chief Stephen Hestor warned against an anti-business culture in Britain, stating;

“ There is a real risk that this country forgets that job number one is to get the economy growing.”

Mr Hestor,along with many of the top business chiefs should consider themselves extremely fortunate to still be employed at all.

It has long been a British trait never to rock the apple cart. Very seldom will someone British complain about their food in a restaurant, while an American will shout across the room to voice his displeasure.

Can you imagine in Russia, or Italy, or Asia; a government/ institution/monarchy, that destroys the economy,which the public then pays for their errors, allows them to stay in such positions and then are told to appreciate what they have as it all falls apart again. The gates at the Winter Palace would have long been torn off their hinges.

Yet, in this country we are to feel privileged that they are doing so much damage with all our hard earned gains. This is not a call to mutiny or violent revolution. But changes have to be made and it may take a revolutionary effort to do this.

We should not be afraid of losing bad businesses, If they threaten to take their business elsewhere let them. How will we ever get by without a company making a £6 billion pound loss per annum?

These are the first 5 ideas to get Britain back on track. What are yours? Do you agree/disagree with these proposals. Do you have any of your own? Please comment and get involved. The 2^nd part of this article, coming soon!

What's So Wrong With Ed Miliband?

2012-02-23T05:54:00.000-08:00

It's now been 18 months since Ed Miliband shocked the Labour party by usurping his brother to take the leadership. Since that time, instead of building a solid platform of support, his leadership has hit crisis point as his popularity has nosedived. So what's so wrong with Ed Miliband?

A recent Sunday times poll shows that over 70% of the public do not perceive him to be a viable Prime minister.

43% of Britons say that Ed Milliband's policies are 'wrong, and he does not look or sound like a possible Prime Minister'
27% say that although he doesn't look or sound like a PM, his policies are 'right'
4% say that although Ed's policies are 'wrong' he still 'looks and sounds like a PM'
Only 7% say that Ed has both the 'right' policies AND 'looks and sounds like a Prime Minister'

Despite this more than 50% of those polled believed he had the right policies. This leads to issue number one for Ed.

Image.

Despite facing an opponent who looks embalmed and ready for the mausoleum. It's also doubtful that he could tell the price of a pint of milk. (The standard Average Joe test for politicians in America.) Ed Miliband still comes across as the weaker image. The reason is twofold. First the exterior look of someone whose had his head flushed down the toilet at school too many times. But perhaps more worrying is his voice, You can have excellent policies but if you ex pout them in a nasally grating tone then no one is going to listen. Idealistically we wish our debate was based on substance rather than style, realistically we know this isn't the case. If initial reactions count for much in todays 24 hour news cycle environment. Then Ed could be in trouble.

Where does he stand?

With the country facing economic ruin, unemployment rising, standard of living decreasing, you would think it would be an easy target for any opposition leader, especially with the amount of flip flopping the government has been performing. Yet Ed Miliband seems to be unable to land any substantive blows on Cameron or the government. Part of the reason for this is the constant change in policies of the opposition, particularly in regard to the economy and cutting the deficit. Politicians can change their policies due to events occurring but is difficult to place your trust in a leader who seems to change tact as soon as he realises it's not connecting with the public. He has at times seemed desperate to shift from supporting working class voters and working class values.

At times Ed has shown a willingness to move away from the trade unions and that Red Ed tag that has haunted him. This is to be applauded but supporting poor families struggling to make ends meet doesn't make you a communist. Fair treatment for public and private sector workers doesn't hold you under the thumb of the trade unions.

Miliband needs a clear concise message which appeals to the majority of hard working British people, A message of fairness, equality and a true vision for economic and social solutions to lead the country out of the mire and into the future. Once he has this he should not switch or tweak after every bad poll or article.

Legacy of New Labour.

One of the major difficulties for any opposition after a sustained period in office is to avoid being tarred by the mistakes, mishaps and fumbles of your party while in power. This has been a constant problem for Labour and Ed Miliband. Any political heavyweights left in the front-line of the party are a ex ministers or advisers of the former administration and any shift in political ideas will be tarnished by past failures.

What was vital for Labour to do was to admit mistakes had been made, apologise for their part in the economic crisis while still pointing to the improved situation that was occurring before the General Election. While they did this briefly they have laid it to bed while the opposition continue to spout the deficit, and the cost per day on almost every media appearance.

It's coming up to two years since the ConLib Coalition took office and it's now time for Labour to go on the offensive, let slip the dogs of war on media appearances. Have hard hitters do the dirty work on shows such as Question Time. Leave Miliband to look dignified and above it all.

This blog seems a damning verdict of Ed Milibands' leadership and his ability to lead Labour back into power. It isn't; I genuinely like the man, I feel he is the countries best bet for getting out of the troubled times we're in. But changes need to be made and fast. Else Ed will be the new Michael Foot in another long walk in the wilderness for Labour.

Where will it end?

2011-05-13T14:20:00.001-07:00

This week saw Scottish football dragged further into the gutter. In the game against Celtic and Hearts, a lone Hearts fan raced from the crowd, past security to physically attack the Celtic manager Neil Lennon. This is the latest in a long line of sectarian, terrorist attacks endured by the Celtic boss, in a season which has brought out the very worst in Scottish football and the fans who follow it.

When Lennon took over from Tony Mowbury last year, he surely could have had no idea of the ordeal in which he, and his family would face from a fanatical minority who follow the national game. In the last year he has had to suffer, abusive chants, death threats, and packages sent aimed to maim or kill. And now finally the voice of this fringe group has a face in a physical attack in the one place Lennon probably felt safe, the football dugout.

The question that hangs over the head of Scottish football, is why there is such pronounced, vile hatred aimed at a man who has committed no crime other than managing one half of the old firm divide. Yes Lennon, is an antagonist, both as a player and manager he has had the knack or riling up players, managers and fans. But then some of the greatest managers of this generation have the same attributes; Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, and Arsene Wenger have all gotten under the skin of the opposition, yet they have never had to endure such vile bitter hatred, they have never had bullets and home made bombs sent to them. They have never had to have 24 hour security for themselves and their families, so why has it reached such a stage with Lennon. The answer is simple. The fans/players these managers have riled up realise what most of us do. THAT IT'S JUST A GAME!

As a Celtic fan I've never had an issue with Lennon, that should seem obvious, yet I do understand why many opposition fans wouldn't like him, he is an outspoken, passionate man who often acts first before thinking of the wider consequences. Yet the hatred shown for him verged on that of a serial killer or paedophile. After the incident on Wednesday night, I've seen friends of mine saying they wished they could knock him out, or worse, and these are usually decent right minded people, so I can only imagine the thoughts running through the heads of these lunatics involved in this terror campaign.

Every time we see or hear the latest horror incident involving the man, you feel that that's the worst of it, and yet the longer it goes on the more horrific it becomes. What is the endgame of this situation? What if that attacker had a weapon or a future attacker takes it further. How does it all end?

The sad truth is that win or lose at the end of the season, Neil Lennon has a decision to make. Does he continue in a job he clearly loves, and has worked hard for? Or does common sense prevail, and he walks off into the sunset, with his family and his life intact. Surely as a society we should all be appalled that any person would have to make that decision.

While I'm sure Neil Lennon will spend the summer searching for the answer, so we, should all take a good look at ourselves. How has it gotten this bad? Football is a beautiful game which brings out the best and worst emotions in us, Joy, euphoria, depression, rage and sometimes even laughter. But when the whistle blows for full time the game is over and normality resumes. Somewhere along the way Scottish football fans have lost this. Will it take the death of Neil Lennon for us to get it back? I can only hope we come to our senses long before that nightmare arrives.

No Game Plan, No Effort, No Chance.

2011-05-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

This Thursday the Scottish people will cast their vote for who will represent them in the Scottish Parliament. Opinion polls suggest that the incumbent SNP (Scottish National Party) will again be the largest party, although look unlikely to gain a majority. This will come as a blow to Labour as they see Scotland as their own turf. In fact before the 2007 Scottish election, Labour hadn't lost in Scotland in 50 years.

The SNP are keen to play up their lead in the polls as satisfaction for their first term in office, While the press play this as a personality contest. With the SNP focusing their campaign around their charismatic leader Alex Salmond, (The parties slogan for this election is 'Vote SNP- Alex Salmond for First Minister.') against the bland Labour leader Ian Grey. However, if as polls suggest Labour do not win this election there are deeper more troubling reasons than the personality of their leader.

When I returned from working abroad in December, I rejoined the Labour party hoping to help in anyway I could to push the party to victory in these elections, As soon as I was sent my membership card I called the number on the back to volunteer for my constituency. After 5 phone calls and no answer, to my calls or voicemail messages I asked volunteers in the neighbouring seat what to do. They gave me the number of another co-ordinator who, after finally getting hold of him asked me to leaflet a nearby district. I told him I would be happy to and would he like me to collect the leaflets or have them delivered. A week later I received a response, (5 weeks to election) and was told they would be delivered on Friday. Friday came and went and after a couple more emails on my part he got back to me and asked for my number so the candidate could call me himself. Since then I have received no contact from any of them. With a week to go I emailed the coordinator for the last time and told him I had, had no contact with anyone and if he needed my help in this district or another one I would be happy to help in any way, Needless to say it's the day before the election and I am still to receive a reply.

The fact they seem to be underutilising volunteers in the district would be a surprise, yet there seems to be little campaigning going on at all, In the weeks leading up to the election, I have received 5 SNP leaflets, 3 Conservative, 3 Lib Dems, and 1 BNP. I hadn't received any mail from Labour until this Sunday, and their leaflet came across as an anti SNP/independence leaflet with a small Labour logo at the bottom.

I would say this is just a local problem, that they don't feel they can win the seat ( a predominately SNP/Conservative area) but the whole campaign has came across as poorly run with severe lapses in political judgement.

Running away from protesters, a desperate last ditch attempt to make this campaign a anti independence debate, the misuse of resources and volunteers all make them deserving of defeat this week. But it was perhaps vetoing the SNP budget, which promised 125,000 apprenticeships then campaigning with the slogan 'JOB JOBS JOBS!' which made the party seem more petty than electable.

Ian Grey comes across as a decent man, with a good vision for the future of Scotland, a serious politician in serious times is not something to be dismissed. Yet it is the management of this election, which he as leader must bear the brunt of; which has really damaged their chances. While the SNP play up the prosperity of Scotland, the capabilities and potential we have as a nation, Labour seem to talk down to the country, giving negative assessments of what the Scottish people can do, not surprisingly; this has failed to capture the imagination. Defeat in this campaign would surely mean the end to Ian Greys' leadership, but until the main problems are exposed and changes are made, there will be little difference in the party other than the top name on the ballot.

If Labour fail to win this election it will not be solely on a popularity contest, but through neglect and defeat in the battle of ideals, vision and trust. It is ambition, inclusion and positivity that win elections, on this scale Labour has failed and thus will deservedly lose this Thursday.

Anne Frank with a message for the Middle East.

2011-04-12T07:10:00.000-07:00

No country sacrifices it's men without reason, and certainly not in the interests of another,and Britain is no exception.

These words were written by Anne Frank on the 22^nd of May 1944,two months before her capture by the Germans, however these words have a lasting meaning, not only in the context of the Second World War, but also by sending a stark warning to democratic activists throughout the Middle East.

As protests and uprisings continue in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the United Nations with Britain and France leading the charge; stepped up to prevent a potential genocide in Libya. In my first article I called for the intervention and applauded the UN resolution when it arrived. But now there are more questions facing the West, as a stalemate has ensued in the region.

David Cameron has floated the notion of sending weapons to arm the rebels in this civil war, while negative domestic opinion rises. It seems that Britain, nor any of it's allies have a sustained strategy with how to respond to the Libya problem, or indeed how to engage in the larger Middle East situation.

So with open revolt, revolution and retaliation occurring in numerous countries in the region. Why did Britain decide to involve itself solely in Libya? Already it seems the conspiracy theories are out about oil within the region. Personally I don't believe the reason behind UN Resolution 1973, was based on oil but rather the threat of a potential slaughter of innocent civilians. The aftermath of this however seems far more murkier than of doing what is right and just.

Libya accounts for two percent of the worlds oil, at a production level of 1.8 million barrels per day, this in comparison with Bahrain for example which produces only 49,000 barrels per day. Should this be taken as motive towards Western intervention? Following the protests in Benghazi Crude oil prices rose to $108 a barrel for the first time since 2008. While British shares fell 1.1%.

Of course these figures do shed some light as to why it was important for Britain to try to enforce some order within the region, and the predicted genocide gave them a justifiable reason for this intervention. But was this the main reason or did they genuinely have the people of Libya's best interests at heart?

It is conceivable that both Britain and France have a decided interest in what occurs in Libya, but that they intervened on moral grounds, however we will never know the true extent of what length each country was preserving it's own interests. While rebels in other nations wonder why the West won't condemn the oppressive actions of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.

In order to prevent these conspiracy theories from continuing there must be a dramatic departure from the norm in international activity. Each nation must pledge to secede to a strong United Nations police force, who will be charged with enforcing peace in nations participating in acts of genocide or violation of the rights of their own people, no matter what their allegiance or status in the world order is.

As we saw in Terry Georges' moving film; Hotel Rwanda, the current structure in which the United Nations rely on independent nations for enforcement, results in crisis's only being resolved when they have the interests of powerful nations at heart. If this change is not enforced, then there will continue to be speculation as to the reasons for international intervention, and Anne Franks' message will continue to haunt the world.

Well done U.N.

2011-04-12T07:08:00.000-07:00

Last week, I made an appeal for governments in the west and the UN to take action against Gaddafi and his regime before it was to late. They finally seem to have accepted that something must be done with a UN vote supporting the creation of a no fly zone. Congratulations to the U.K. France and Italy for stepping up to be the moral conscience of Europe in this matter. While Gaddafi has promised a cease fire at the news, there are still reports of attacks. The UN must see this through and prove that they are not a toothless institution.

Too Much, Too Fast?

2011-04-12T07:07:00.001-07:00

Since taking office last May, the Conservative led coalition government have begun to slash the deficit level of the United Kingdom. To do so they have implemented the biggest cuts to public spending that we have seen for generations. The big question is whether this radical approach is a stringent policy to place Britain on the road to recovery.

In May 2010, the National debt for the U.K, stood at 893.4 billion pounds with an estimates net borrowing of 157 billion for the 2010-2011 period, taking it to over a trillion pounds. In the general election the three major parties both emphasised reducing the deficit (roughly 185 billion) as a major priority, However neither the Conservatives; nor the Lib Dems suggested anything to the scale that they have so far implemented.

Initially they announced over 7 billion pounds in cuts with each government department having to reduce their finances, some by as much as 20%. Most notable of these cuts was the. 650 million pounds the Education department would have to make. Then in his June budget the real massacre occurred.

George Osborne announced an increase in VAT, from 17.5% to 20%, Child benefit and public service pay was frozen. This budget was continued by further announcements of the cancellation of Sure Start, the EMA, a reduction in charitable funding, and the trebling of Student tuition fees in England. The latter saw the largest protests in the capital since the Iraq war.

The governments obsessive desire to put deficit reduction before all else has meant that everything is for sale and no ones jobs are safe. With police, teachers, nurses, and public workers all expected to be made redundant and even Britain's forests were considered for sale. But is it all worth it?

George Osborne has claimed that these cuts are a “tough but fair” action on debt that was “unavoidable.” However fiscal reduction is not the sole factor in reducing a nations debt, you also need economic growth which has stagnated since the reductions have taken place, with GDP contracting 0.6% in the final quarter of 2011. This reduction is hardly surprising with the cost of living rising yet living wages remaining the same. Also as unemployment goes up, which it will continue to do during these cuts then more people will have less to spend and those, unemployed will only be spending money given to them by the government in benefits.

The government needs to change it's focus, rather than decrease spending they should be engaging in ways to increase economic prosperity such as trade and jobs growth. After all you don't take out a mortgage on a home and use your entire wage to pay it back in the first 6 months.

Osborne's comment of being “tough but fair” seem to be rankling more and more with the British people, as the perception of this government seems to be that of a group of individuals who don't know what it is to struggle financially. This was particularly apt when days before the rise in VAT came into affect the Chancellor was seen living it up in a 10,000 pound a week château.

The major worry for many Brits as they endure these years of painful austerity is what will be left of Britain as a country when the deficit is finally reduced. With cuts in policing, teachers, overhauls of welfare and the NHS in the works, will we need to once again go into debt to reconstruct our destroyed public services while the world looks at this one time stallion of a nation who ruled the world as a now broken down cart horse.

Hitler, Sadam, Pol Pott, Stalin.... Gaddafi?

2011-04-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

The fate of the rebel uprising in Libya has suffered a grave setback this week thanks in part to Western powers still coming to terms with what the historic revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa.

With his premiership hanging by a thread following the capture of Libya's second city, Benghazi; Gaddafi laid out his chips on the table, promising air strikes and the slaughter of his own people, then waited with baited breath for a response from the west; If it were a poker game, his bluff would have cleaned up the table.

Western powers have been at odds to find a coherent policy towards what is happening within the region and with the financial crisis and daily reminders of their last attempts of an ethical foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, seem anxious to avoid further conflict in the region. While Obama dithered, and Cameron came to the dance arm in arm with British arm dealers, pro- Gadaffi followers have been taking back their power by any means necessary, and with the launch of air strikes the balance of power seems likely to shift back to the Colonels side.

Any hopes of an international intervention seems to be fading as Britain and France have both stated that they will not become involved without a UN resolution which will likely be blocked as Russia has promised to veto any attempts of instigating a no fly zone in the region. With his hands now firmly untied, Gadaffi has promised to shed the blood of the rebels and with his military might most fear a mass genocide will be inflicted on his own people.

The very idea of ethical intervention arrived in the the U.K, in the 1990's, when the late Robin Cook, who at the time was Foreign Secretary; made the case for his government to have a 'moral responsibility' which would; “make Britain once again a force for good in the world.” This seemed to follow the recognition that our utmost duty was to protect not only those of our own country, but of all mankind. However with difficult times being endured by most in Britain there seems to be little support for this theory in regards to Libya. With a recent Sun newspaper poll suggesting that only 1 in 5 British people supported the deployment of British troops to protect Libyan citizens.

Britain, and indeed many other Western powers are not unknown to turn a blind eye to genocides abroad. In fact, up until the late 1980's Britain and Germany, were still supplying the Khmer Rouge with weapons and supplies in their fight with Communist Vietnam, who had freed Cambodia from Pol Pot and his party. This funding occurred long after the revelations of the Khmer Rouge having massacred over 3 million of their own people between 1975 and 1979.

This is a pivotal time not only within the Libya, but for all countries in that region. In the last three months we have seen historic and inspirational movements which, through non violent measures has toppled dictators and oppression. What occurs in Libya will affect any further attempts within the region as citizens fight for the basic human rights we take for granted every day. This is a time when the West should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the rebels, and once again reclaim the moral authority as a standard bearer in the belief of democracy, human rights and freedom for all. If they do not; then the blood of the Libyan people will not only be on Gadaffis' hands; but also on our own.